administration of Miranda warning (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

administration of Miranda warning in Kansas

10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Oregon v. Elstadgreen
scotus · 1985 · cited in 6 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1995–2020
2 sentences

2020In such circumstances, the finder of fact may reasonably conclude that the suspect made a rational and intelligent choice whether to waive or invoke his rights." Elstad, 470 U.S. at 314 .

2014In such circumstances, the finder of fact may reasonably conclude that the suspect made a rational and intelligent choice whether to waive or invoke his rights.” (Emphasis added.) 470 U.S. at 314 .

16

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Brown v. Illinois green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

2010Indeed, in that case, which involved a confession, the Court observed that "[n]o single fact is dispositive" of whether the defendant's statement was "the product of a free will" and pointed out that the administration of Miranda warnings also figured into the analysis. 422 U.S. at 603 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 .

2010Indeed, in that case, which involved a confession, the Court observed that "[n]o single fact is dispositive" of whether the defendant's statement was "the product of a free will" and pointed out that the administration of Miranda warnings also figured into the analysis. 422 U.S. at 603 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 .

22010–2010
State v. Hedges green
kan · 2000
2 sentences

2001In such circumstances, the finder of fact may reasonably conclude that the suspect made a rational and intelligent choice whether to waive or invoke his rights." State v. Hedges, 269 Kan. 895 , Syl. ¶ 4, 8 P.2d 1259 (2000).

2001In such circumstances, the finder of fact may reasonably conclude that the suspect made a rational and intelligent choice whether to waive or invoke his rights.” State v. Hedges, 269 Kan. 895 , Syl. ¶ 4, 8 P.2d 1259 (2000).

22001–2001

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 21-3413 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 22-2402 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3415 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 130 (1977–2025) NJ 45 (1987–2026) IL 18 (1986–2023) PA 17 (1985–2026) CA 16 (1990–2024) MA 14 (1989–2025) FL 12 (1990–2019) KS 10 (1995–2020) NC 6 (2009–2024) OH 6 (1992–2020) TX 5 (1999–2015) ID 5 (1991–2017) NH 5 (1990–2021) NM 5 (1987–2008) VA 5 (1990–2022) ME 5 (1989–2016) OR 4 (1989–2012) IN 4 (1985–2017) GA 4 (1999–2024) WA 4 (1988–2014) CT 3 (2012–2023) AR 3 (1991–2022) AK 3 (1985–2006) MI 3 (2016–2017) DC 2 (1988–2002) TN 2 (1992–2012) AL 2 (1987–1989) MD 2 (2002–2002) MO 2 (2002–2004) CO 2 (1982–1985) SD 2 (1988–1989) SC 2 (2010–2014) WI 2 (1996–1999) KY 2 (2014–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check